YOUR OPINION

Letters to the Editor for Oct. 4

Published: Sunday, October 4, 2009 at 6:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Sunday, October 4, 2009 at 12:32 a.m.

Medicaid overlooked in health care debate

As I read about cutting costs for Medicare and adding "free" services for those without coverage, I have yet to read anything about the state of Medicaid. Medicaid costs have skyrocketed in the last 10 years, and we should be working on its inadequacies.

I retired five years ago from the Department of Social Services in upstate New York as a medical review case manager for the welfare-to-work population. My clients attended a monthly case-management meeting where they were provided a pocket calendar for the ensuing month to document all doctor's appointments and associated treatment plans as they worked to become employable.

We would also review their calendar for the previous month. It was my observation that, as a rule, my clients' perception was: If it's free, it has no value. They missed more doctor/rehab/medical testing appointments than they kept. In many cases, I had arranged medical transportation for them, which involved a great deal of expense. Upon arrival, many times the driver reported no one was home.

Missed appointments are expensive - lost time must be paid for. Ironically, these same clients who have access to free medical care through HMOs located in their immediate areas, are quick to access the local emergency room for sniffles and stomach aches, resulting in medical billing three or four times more than if seen in a doctor's office. Again, the client's perception is that since the treatment is "free," it doesn't matter.

Medicaid provides free medical care for those in need, but they must accept responsibility for keeping scheduled appointments with consequences for failure to do so. Medicaid may be "free" to the client. It is you, the taxpayer, who pays for the misuse and abuse of this system.

Barbara Owen

Ocala

Hating not helping

Where has all our common sense gone? We need health care reform. Nobody denies that. But it isn’t about health care anymore. It is all about politics and power and getting re-elected.

We need to know how many in Congress get campaign funds from insurance companies, have an interest in pharmaceutical

companies or own part of health care facilities. If we ask, will they tell us honestly? What happened to the promise that lobbyists would be ousted from Washington?

I am so tired of seeing my elected representatives care only about their political parties and not about the people they represent. I am tired of people talking trash about our president.

What kind of nation have we become that we care more about hating than helping?

I probably won’t live to see the next president elected, and that is OK. Whatever happens, I will be glad not to see it. The lack of civility and the inability to see both sides of a question makes me wonder if people really are just sheep, doing whatever they are told by the talking heads on TV. If we, as a nation, let the talk show hosts take over our country, then we will get just what we deserve — and that is devastatingly sad.

Barb Zimmerman

Ocala

It’s unfair

The article regarding governmental subsidies being providedfor migrant farm workers’ children to attend Head Start on Sept. 28 has left me more than perplexed.

Like the mother in your story, I also am a single mother working very hard to make sure that my son has a bright future. I work full time and also am wrapping up my last prerequisite for the RN program at CFCC.

My son is a year old, and he has been on the wait list for early Head Start since June. Like the mother in your story, I, too, cannot afford day care and rely on family members to help out while we eagerly wait for a slot to open. It doesn’t make sense to me that while the child of a (most-likely illegal) migrant farm worker is attending a program paid for by the government, my child sits and waits for an available slot in traditional early Head Start.

I have been in the American workforce for 15 years and feel that my tax dollars should be supporting those who are here legally. I understand that every child should be afforded the opportunity to succeed. However, a taxpaying citizen should be provided the opportunity to receive help from the government prior to someone who has never paid a tax in their life.

In the meantime, while the migrant farm worker’s son is learning his ABCs and 123s and eating lunch paid for by my taxes, I will continue to hope, on a daily basis, that I hear back from the Head Start program for American citizens.

Jackie Evans

Belleview

Fueling the economy

The current administration has made it very clear that they will let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire in 2011.

That’s very interesting, because I read recently that in 2002, the first year of the tax cuts, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid a total of $301 billion in taxes. But by the end of 2006, that same group paid a total of $408 billion in taxes. That’s a $107 billion increase in tax revenues.

Additionally, during the Bush administration, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10 million new jobs were created. It is very easy to make the connection that the top 5 percent of taxpayers, not needing the additional cash from these tax cuts, invested the money and made more taxable income for themselves, and that these investments helped to create some of these new jobs.

It is also very easy to make the connection that when these tax cuts expire, these same taxpayers, now forced to pay the higher tax rates, will take their investment dollars out of the system and sit on the sidelines till we once again have a business-friendly environment.

These tax increases will produce a net reduction in tax revenues for the country.

Tax increases during an economic downturn will do nothing more than extend the down cycle. What the government

needs to do is to keep taxes low, and stop this out-of-control spending.

Dennis P. Birdsall

Dunnellon

The Medicare question

I recently received my AARP bulletin in the mail. There is an article in it called “The Medicare question” about how “savings” from Medicare affect benefits?

One of the cost-saving cuts will be to eliminate the government

subsidies to the Medicare Advantage plans.

Our Advantage plans save my wife and me $5,000 per year in premium payments over what we were paying for our AARP Medicare supplement. It costs us about $1,800 in co-pays — that is a $3,200 savings per year that I will lose if this bill passes. Plus, the Advantage plans include prescription-drug savings, which we do not pay extra for.

The government says that it pays the Advantage plan insurance companies an average of 14 percent more for people in these plans — about $1,100 a year per person more — than for those enrolled in the traditional Medicare program. Why pay 14 percent more? Is this what the government says it is paying out so they can justify the elimination of the Advantage plans? Or, is the government that bad of a negotiator to let the insurance companies have more than what it costs them to manage our health care.

Either way, the government needs to better explain the purpose for their need to eliminate the Advantage plan programs, or remove the Advantage plans from their cost-saving list.

<p><b>Medicaid overlooked in health care debate</b></p><p>As I read about cutting costs for Medicare and adding "free" services for those without coverage, I have yet to read anything about the state of Medicaid. Medicaid costs have skyrocketed in the last 10 years, and we should be working on its inadequacies.</p><p>I retired five years ago from the Department of Social Services in upstate New York as a medical review case manager for the welfare-to-work population. My clients attended a monthly case-management meeting where they were provided a pocket calendar for the ensuing month to document all doctor's appointments and associated treatment plans as they worked to become employable.</p><p>We would also review their calendar for the previous month. It was my observation that, as a rule, my clients' perception was: If it's free, it has no value. They missed more doctor/rehab/medical testing appointments than they kept. In many cases, I had arranged medical transportation for them, which involved a great deal of expense. Upon arrival, many times the driver reported no one was home.</p><p>Missed appointments are expensive - lost time must be paid for. Ironically, these same clients who have access to free medical care through HMOs located in their immediate areas, are quick to access the local emergency room for sniffles and stomach aches, resulting in medical billing three or four times more than if seen in a doctor's office. Again, the client's perception is that since the treatment is "free," it doesn't matter.</p><p>Medicaid provides free medical care for those in need, but they must accept responsibility for keeping scheduled appointments with consequences for failure to do so. Medicaid may be "free" to the client. It is you, the taxpayer, who pays for the misuse and abuse of this system.</p><p><i>Barbara Owen</p><p>Ocala</i></p><p><b>Hating not helping</b></p><p>Where has all our common sense gone? We need health care reform. Nobody denies that. But it isn’t about health care anymore. It is all about politics and power and getting re-elected.</p><p>We need to know how many in Congress get campaign funds from insurance companies, have an interest in pharmaceutical</p><p>companies or own part of health care facilities. If we ask, will they tell us honestly? What happened to the promise that lobbyists would be ousted from Washington?</p><p>I am so tired of seeing my elected representatives care only about their political parties and not about the people they represent. I am tired of people talking trash about our president.</p><p>What kind of nation have we become that we care more about hating than helping?</p><p>I probably won’t live to see the next president elected, and that is OK. Whatever happens, I will be glad not to see it. The lack of civility and the inability to see both sides of a question makes me wonder if people really are just sheep, doing whatever they are told by the talking heads on TV. If we, as a nation, let the talk show hosts take over our country, then we will get just what we deserve  and that is devastatingly sad.</p><p><i>Barb Zimmerman</p><p>Ocala</i></p><p><b>It’s unfair</b></p><p>The article regarding governmental subsidies being providedfor migrant farm workers’ children to attend Head Start on Sept. 28 has left me more than perplexed.</p><p>Like the mother in your story, I also am a single mother working very hard to make sure that my son has a bright future. I work full time and also am wrapping up my last prerequisite for the RN program at CFCC.</p><p>My son is a year old, and he has been on the wait list for early Head Start since June. Like the mother in your story, I, too, cannot afford day care and rely on family members to help out while we eagerly wait for a slot to open. It doesn’t make sense to me that while the child of a (most-likely illegal) migrant farm worker is attending a program paid for by the government, my child sits and waits for an available slot in traditional early Head Start.</p><p>I have been in the American workforce for 15 years and feel that my tax dollars should be supporting those who are here legally. I understand that every child should be afforded the opportunity to succeed. However, a taxpaying citizen should be provided the opportunity to receive help from the government prior to someone who has never paid a tax in their life.</p><p>In the meantime, while the migrant farm worker’s son is learning his ABCs and 123s and eating lunch paid for by my taxes, I will continue to hope, on a daily basis, that I hear back from the Head Start program for American citizens.</p><p><i>Jackie Evans</p><p>Belleview</i></p><p><b>Fueling the economy</b></p><p>The current administration has made it very clear that they will let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire in 2011.</p><p>That’s very interesting, because I read recently that in 2002, the first year of the tax cuts, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid a total of $301 billion in taxes. But by the end of 2006, that same group paid a total of $408 billion in taxes. That’s a $107 billion increase in tax revenues.</p><p>Additionally, during the Bush administration, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10 million new jobs were created. It is very easy to make the connection that the top 5 percent of taxpayers, not needing the additional cash from these tax cuts, invested the money and made more taxable income for themselves, and that these investments helped to create some of these new jobs.</p><p>It is also very easy to make the connection that when these tax cuts expire, these same taxpayers, now forced to pay the higher tax rates, will take their investment dollars out of the system and sit on the sidelines till we once again have a business-friendly environment.</p><p>These tax increases will produce a net reduction in tax revenues for the country.</p><p>Tax increases during an economic downturn will do nothing more than extend the down cycle. What the government</p><p>needs to do is to keep taxes low, and stop this out-of-control spending.</p><p><i>Dennis P. Birdsall</p><p>Dunnellon</i></p><p><b>The Medicare question</b></p><p>I recently received my AARP bulletin in the mail. There is an article in it called The Medicare question about how savings from Medicare affect benefits?</p><p>One of the cost-saving cuts will be to eliminate the government</p><p>subsidies to the Medicare Advantage plans.</p><p>Our Advantage plans save my wife and me $5,000 per year in premium payments over what we were paying for our AARP Medicare supplement. It costs us about $1,800 in co-pays  that is a $3,200 savings per year that I will lose if this bill passes. Plus, the Advantage plans include prescription-drug savings, which we do not pay extra for.</p><p>The government says that it pays the Advantage plan insurance companies an average of 14 percent more for people in these plans  about $1,100 a year per person more  than for those enrolled in the traditional Medicare program. Why pay 14 percent more? Is this what the government says it is paying out so they can justify the elimination of the Advantage plans? Or, is the government that bad of a negotiator to let the insurance companies have more than what it costs them to manage our health care.</p><p>Either way, the government needs to better explain the purpose for their need to eliminate the Advantage plan programs, or remove the Advantage plans from their cost-saving list.</p><p><i>Ken Cole</p><p>Ocala</i></p>